Collection: Directories and Documents > Tanis Thorne Native Californian & Nisenan Collection

About This Item:

Title: Reconsidering the Legacies of Colonialism in Native North America (January 2013) Collection Type: Directories and Documents Collection Name: Tanis Thorne Native Californian & Nisenan Collection Author: Lee Panich Published: January 2013 # of Pages: 19 Download PDF: User Login Required Download OCR Text: User Login Required

Date Scanned: 2017-09-22 18:20:22 OCR Software Version #: tesseract 5.4.1 Item Sourced From: PDF First Created: 2025-03-17 05:52:12 Last Updated: 2025-03-17 05:52:12

Original Held At: Searls Historical Library Location: 161 Nevada City Hwy, Nevada City, CA 95959

Page: of 19  

106 three primary areas of current archaeological theory — identity, practice, and context—that are particularly well suited to archaeological studies of indigenous persistence. I then offer an example of why persistence matters in archaeology. Using the anthropological and archaeological study of Spanish colonialism in California as an illustration, I explore how anthropology helped perpetuate the myth of Indian extinction, the effect it has had for various native groups, and how an archaeological focus on persistence might help to rectify the problem. I close by offering some thoughts on the potentials and challenges of archaeologies of persistence to advance our understanding of colonialism, as well as to benefit those whose pasts we are studying. Anthropological interest in the relationship between preand postcontact native cultures has deep historical roots, but the renewed focus on the persistence of Native American societies can be seen to stem from three watershed developments, which taken together have great implications for archaeological studies of colonialism in North America: the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990, the growing archaeological interest in colonialism surrounding the Columbian Quincentenary in 1992, and the development of indigenous archaeologies. Each has forced archaeologists to grapple with the diverse processes of change and persistence that have unfolded in indigenous communities over the past five centuries and therefore represents an opportunity for archaeologists to challenge the myth of Indian extinction that has so pervasively dominated much public and scholarly thinking about the encounters between indigenous societies and various forms of European colonialism. Indeed, archaeological and popular thought on Native Americans is steeped in narratives that focus not on persistence but on conquest, disease, assimilation, and loss (Ferris 2009; Mitchell and Scheiber 2010; Silliman 2010), what Wilcox (2009:11—15) refers to as “terminal narratives.” Archaeology has tended to reinforce terminal narratives through research agendas explicitly focused on the demographic, cultural, and technological changes of the colonial period (Ramenofsky 1991) and related, essentialist analytical frameworks like acculturation that tether indigeAMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 78, No. 1, 2013 nous identities and cultures to static, externally defined traits (Cusick 1998). These approaches are problematic in that archaeological interpretations may color popular understandings of indigenous cultures and identities in ways that set up unrealistic expectations about contemporary native communities. While change has indeed been a large part of many indigenous histories since the onset of colonialism, archaeological approaches that equate change with loss have helped perpetuate the idea that the extinction of indigenous cultures was an inevitable outcome of colonialism. These explanations overlook the various ways that native peoples negotiated colonialism and often fail to reckon with the presence of modern indigenous communities, effectively writing them out of their own histories (Mitchell and Scheiber 2010; Rodriguez-Alegria 2008; Wilcox 2010). When applied to the realm of governmental acknowledgment, these terminal narratives and essentialist expectations about Native American cultures and identities intersect in ways that limit the sovereignty of some native groups. In the federal recognition process, which is based in large part on essentialist notions of unbroken political continuity, indigenous groups whose histories include various social and political transformations are less likely to secure governmental acknowledgment (Lightfoot et al. 2013; Miller 2004; see also Clifford 1988). Today, archaeology stands ready to critically reassess past approaches to the study of colonialism and to challenge terminal narratives within and outside of our discipline. Instead of framing the issue as one of an irrevocable break with the past, recent research considers the myriad ways that native peoples actively reinterpreted social organization and identity during the colonial period, resulting in a broad spectrum of native communities that have persisted in various forms into the present day. Untangling these complex stories archaeologically leaves us still grappling with questions about continuity and change, but the discussion has moved from a simple dichotomy to frameworks that allow for continuity through change and “changing continuities” (Ferris 2009; Silliman 2009). Archaeologies of persistence allow us to place colonialism in the long-term context of indigenous histories through the exploration of how native peoples drew on existing